Saddam, must have slipped down the slope to get in the hole they found him in

[etenpenny]

Originally Posted by mosesbotbol

You know, Sadam was awarded a "Key to the City" of Detroit. He had donated millions to city to rebuild some churches. Only 4 people have ever been awarded this in Detroit. As much as he is a despot leader, Iraq was one of the few countries in the ME that was not religious based and Sadam never directly did anything to the USA... Iraq had also been a US ally for many years; we attacked them.

We all know about his WMD's, oh, I mean the ones he didn't have. I feel we should've lifted the sanctions and moved into Iraq like it was the 51st state. We would've got the oil and no one would've been killed.

By-the-way, Sadam smokes Cohiba Lanceros and Esplendidos.

Yea right, yea he was donating moeny to detriot all the while forceing his people to live in fear of thier lives, in a police state. That joker was one of the worst thugs in the world, who knows how many he kiled and totured, although not many were US citizens, your right.

[mosesbotbol]

Originally Posted by etenpenny

Yea right, yea he was donating moeny to detriot all the while forceing his people to live in fear of thier lives, in a police state. That joker was one of the worst thugs in the world, who knows how many he kiled and totured, although not many were US citizens, your right.

If Iraq really had a free election, who do you think would really win? The reason Sadam had to rule like he did is because that is the only way to keep the peace out there. Look at Iraq now, and before the Persian Gulf, Iraq was flourishing. The tribal rivalries go back a long, long time and now the country is in chaos.

[PadronMe]

Originally Posted by mosesbotbol

is the only way to keep the peace out there. Look at Iraq now, and before the Persian Gulf, Iraq was flourishing.

Are you serious? Sure, he was keeping peace by invading Kuwait.

The US should have taken him out the first time, then we wouldn't have to deal with him now.

And who was fourishing in Iraq?

Do you really believe what you are writing?

[FpDoc77]

Yea who cares if he made an assasination attempt on a former president, that he supports terrorism, or that he was a mass murderer of his own people. Who cares if he pays suicide bombers familys 20k US for each bombing. The fact is...there are alot of bad guys in this world. We could have picked any to hurt. We picked Iraq because its strategically centered in the heart of the Muslim world. This is the same world that wants all of us dead. This is the same world that beheads innocent people, kills and rapes their own women, and is willing to die just to kill your children. The fact is...the Muslim community could turn this country into a third world nation overnight. They withdraw oil supplies and we are done...end of story. By securing Iraq we took one step foward to securing our future. So if some extreme left winged liberals want to cry for this guy, almost making him out to be a good guy...an innocent man the big bad wolf is picking on...then I just have one thing to say. Move to any Arab nation for a year and just see how you like it. Heck why dont the entire left wing move there for good!

[AAlmeter]

Originally Posted by mosesbotbol

If Iraq really had a free election, who do you think would really win? The reason Sadam had to rule like he did is because that is the only way to keep the peace out there. Look at Iraq now, and before the Persian Gulf, Iraq was flourishing. The tribal rivalries go back a long, long time and now the country is in chaos.

So BS elections and slaying thousands because they are ethnically differnt is keeping peace?

Iraq was not flourishing. The ~20% that Saddam deemed ethnically superior were allowed to live under the umbrella of his regime and made out ok. The rest ate sand when they weren't getting gassed. Which, ironically enough, qualifies as a WMD.

[mosesbotbol]

Originally Posted by AAlmeter

So BS elections and slaying thousands because they are ethnically differnt is keeping peace?

Compared to what is going on now, I would say yes, that is keeping the peace.

[mosesbotbol]

Originally Posted by PadronMe

Are you serious? Sure, he was keeping peace by invading Kuwait.

The US should have taken him out the first time, then we wouldn't have to deal with him now.

And who was fourishing in Iraq?

Do you really believe what you are writing?

Iraq was the fastest developing country in Gulf region before until they invaded Kuwait. A lot of people within Europe and Asia had a ton of business both oil and telecomm previous to all this stuff happened.

It’s been shown there was no link to terrorism and Saddam, just as no WMD’s or Al Qaeda. The US’s justification for invading Iraq is no different than Germany’s justifications for invading Poland. Iraq was not a fundamentalist nation under Saddam, and the very last element he wanted in his country is Bin Laden and the like. Bin Laden undermines Saddam’s power. I know several people of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim faiths that all had flourishing lives in Iraq up to the Persian Gulf war; what about the inspections? They didn’t find anything…

The world is full of despot leaders, and many more people are dying in Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Somalia and list goes on and on, but they don’t have oil. Please don’t think the US’s action is altruistic or for the good of humanity; the US cares about securing their resources and that’s it.

I am hardly a liberal either, quite the contrary.

[Hammerhead]

Originally Posted by mosesbotbol

I am hardly a liberal either, quite the contrary.

Hard to tell, based on your views posited here consisting of boilerplate talking points in lockstep with the Left, most of which have been discredited.

But just for the sport of it, how would you "Deny terrorists a safe harbor"? Where would you start, and how would you begin defusing "The tribal rivalries go back a long, long time"?

And are you suggesting that we not do anything about any despots, just because there's more than one? Or should we pick the ones that can be deposed who also happen to present a threat the the security of an entire region and threaten to inflame the entire world in a conflict?

Today's thought for rumination: What happens when we finally do find WMD in Syria?

[FpDoc77]

Originally Posted by mosesbotbol

Iraq was the fastest developing country in Gulf region before until they invaded Kuwait. A lot of people within Europe and Asia had a ton of business both oil and telecomm previous to all this stuff happened.

It’s been shown there was no link to terrorism and Saddam, just as no WMD’s or Al Qaeda. The US’s justification for invading Iraq is no different than Germany’s justifications for invading Poland. Iraq was not a fundamentalist nation under Saddam, and the very last element he wanted in his country is Bin Laden and the like. Bin Laden undermines Saddam’s power. I know several people of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim faiths that all had flourishing lives in Iraq up to the Persian Gulf war; what about the inspections? They didn’t find anything…

The world is full of despot leaders, and many more people are dying in Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Somalia and list goes on and on, but they don’t have oil. Please don’t think the US’s action is altruistic or for the good of humanity; the US cares about securing their resources and that’s it.

I am hardly a liberal either, quite the contrary.

Are you really that thick headed that you believe the liberal mainstream medias version of truth? Let me suggest something. Dig and do your own research. Then take that research and apply it with a touch of realism and an ounce of sanity. The fact is the gas Saddam used on his own people is considered a WMD. There goes one of your theories. Second, Saddam pays the families of suicide bombers 20k US for each successful suicide bombing attempt. So much for no link to terrorism. Third, If Saddam was so innocent why did he continually play games kicking UN inspectors out of his country? As for the US's action not being altruistic on that we agree. It was about survival. I already stated why we invaded Iraq in an earlier post. I wont repeat it. This isnt a bubble utopia we live in...the fact is the Muslim world has us by the balls. Take away our oil and we become Ethiopia overnight. If the Muslim world wants to bring war to our front porch, then I say lets strap on the gloves. If that means securing an oil supply with a puppet government in Iraq...then Im all for it. What makes you think that these animals will just go away if we leave them be? If that were true I would agree with you. The fact is that the Muslim world has been at war for 1400 years. If you think these guys will stop until every last American is either enslaved or dead then you are mistaken. They live, eat and breathe death and conflict. I say take it to them, give them what they want and put them on the defense. Its hard to play offense when you have to play defense. Thank you G. Bush Jr. for having the balls to do the right thing.

[etenpenny]

Originally Posted by mosesbotbol

Compared to what is going on now, I would say yes, that is keeping the peace.

Thats a joke, people would rather have freedom then oppression, even if the oppression lead to "peace", which wasnt even peace at all
Peace is not having a leader that kills and totures anyone that voices or is even is though to voice an opinion different the Sadam.

[mosesbotbol]

Originally Posted by Hammerhead

Hard to tell, based on your views posited here consisting of boilerplate talking points in lockstep with the Left, most of which have been discredited.

But just for the sport of it, how would you "Deny terrorists a safe harbor"? Where would you start, and how would you begin defusing "The tribal rivalries go back a long, long time"?

And are you suggesting that we not do anything about any despots, just because there's more than one? Or should we pick the ones that can be deposed who also happen to present a threat the the security of an entire region and threaten to inflame the entire world in a conflict?

Today's thought for rumination: What happens when we finally do find WMD in Syria?

I would stick to fighting it out in Afghanistan, and then fight it out in Saudi where the terrorist actually were from on 9-11; none of them or Al Qaeda was in Iraq. Let's find the WMD's in Syria and then have the UN deal with it. The UN should be the one's dealing with Iraq too. What did Iraq directly do to the USA to warrant an invasion? Global problems should be dealt with a global scope. Germany and France didn't the US was warranted in invading Iraq, why is that? Obviously, it's not a unanimous decision worldwide that Iraq was a threat.

[mosesbotbol]

Originally Posted by etenpenny

Thats a joke, people would rather have freedom then oppression, even if the oppression lead to "peace", which wasnt even peace at all
Peace is not having a leader that kills and totures anyone that voices or is evenis though to voice an opinion different the Sadam.

US had internment camps and what about Abu Garib and rendition camps around the world sponsored by us? We have capital punishment and don’t think twice about sending our children to war so some fat cat gets a federal contract. It’s an opinion that everyone wants freedom, not a fact. We don’t have the most freedom in the US either. In the Netherlands or Switzerland the sense of freedom feels bigger than here. Do you think there’s more peace now in Iraq? Saddam is not the only leader to suppress people who view other than he does. In his words, those people are criminals. Why don’t we invade Haiti then? Same type of political oppression is going on there.

[mr.c]

[SIZE="7"]well this thread is in the tall weeds, with no hope of getting out.

let it die guys, let it die. [/SIZE]

[etenpenny]

you want to know truth read:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110007611
Joe Lieberman

[Hammerhead]

Originally Posted by mosesbotbol

I would stick to fighting it out in Afghanistan, and then fight it out in Saudi where the terrorist actually were from on 9-11; none of them or Al Qaeda was in Iraq. Let's find the WMD's in Syria and then have the UN deal with it. The UN should be the one's dealing with Iraq too. What did Iraq directly do to the USA to warrant an invasion? Global problems should be dealt with a global scope. Germany and France didn't the US was warranted in invading Iraq, why is that? Obviously, it's not a unanimous decision worldwide that Iraq was a threat.

Interesting that rather than answer the question about what you'd do, you redirect the conversation with more red herrings. It's clear that you've so bought into the far left's talking points that I fear that I might not be able to help pull you out of the tailspin - but I'll do my best to try.

Nevertheless, in the spirit of friendly debate, let me take your points - which are one and all boilerplate from the extreme left, and knock 'em down.

1) There's nothing left to do in Afghanistan that a few Boy Scout troops can't handle. Our military has done such a thorough job of routing the Taliban and restoring a stable non-oppressive government that we're almost near the time when we can leave.

2) Doesn't it nag at you that nearly every 9/11 hijackers conveniently had Saudi passports? Couldn't it just be that it was a 'setup'? I'm not suggesting that the Saudis are 'friendly', but why would they wish to piss off their biggest customer?

3) As soon as you convince Syria to consent to UN inspections, then I'm sure we'll be happy to oblige by sending in our best and brightest weapons inspectors. Then, let the games begin!!!

4) You've GOT to be kidding about the UN. How can you type that with a straight face? The same UN that issued dozens of toothless resolutions against Iraq? The same UN that allows the genocide to coninue in Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Somalia and Haiti? The same UN that's been caught red-handed in the biggest scandle in the history of the world? The same UN that's proven itself absolutely incompetent time and time again, and has not resolved a single issue ever? Riiiiight. Sure.

5) Germany, France and Russia didn't become involved in the action because they weren't attacked, and they had significant weapons, chemical, and oil futures contracts. And when someone can explain to me why we continually find German, French and Russian weapons and avionics that are of a technology date past the UN embargo on military technology to Iraq then I'll ask you again to remind me exactly which newspapers you read, and from where you get your information. Boston Globe, is it??? NY Times??? Washington Post???

6) Global problems can't be dealt with on a global scope when a handful of those who would be involved are the same people who want to stick a knife in your back. Yes, it's not a worldwide unanimous decision that Iraq was a threat... until just a few months ago, Muslims weren't rioting in the streets of Paris, or blowing up train stations in Spain.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled subliminal messaging system, featuring the music of Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer and the Streisand Hot Air Ensemble.